[raydan]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

There are already tankers plying the west coast, but they don't come through the Hecate Strait, which, maritmers tell me, is a treacherous little slip of water.

AFAIK, if the oil was shipped from Prince Rupert there would be no reason to go thru Hecate Strait.

No but it will still go through Dixon Entrance . A truly miserable stretch of ocean.

They could use an Offshore Loading System.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

AFAIK, if the oil was shipped from Prince Rupert there would be no reason to go thru Hecate Strait.

No but it will still go through Dixon Entrance . A truly miserable stretch of ocean.

But there's nothing to hit there. The tankers should surely be big enough to slough off any weather/waves.

Well there's not much to hit in Hecate Straight either untk the shoreline shows up. Both are wide but both are notoriously nasty stretches of water. Prince Rupert only eliminates the need to go down the narrow Douglas Channel. One still has to deal with the waters and the fact that a grounding would likely be on Haida Gwaii or Prince of Wales Islsnd in Alaska.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Enbridge = pipeline.

Pipelines don't go overseas. Someone else owns the tanker.

Do you need me to draw it in crayon for you?

How disingenuous (and snotty) of you. No tankers no pipeline. Fine, the precise point is that Enbridge won't be owning the tankers that ship the oil. But there wouldn't be any tankers except for Enbridge.

This whole project is based on substantially higher oil prices than we had even a while ago. With oil prices dropping I wonder if it will be put on the back burner anyway.

That's funny. Take my comment any way you choose, but crayons are all I have.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Enbridge = pipeline.

Pipelines don't go overseas. Someone else owns the tanker.

Do you need me to draw it in crayon for you?

Holy fuck Sherlock, look who needs the crayons! WTF is your point anyways?

NOTE:

1) Pipelines can spill too and Enbridge is currently responsible for largest pipeline spill, which occured just in 2010. And they got roasted for their incompetence. What are tyring to suggest in the above, that oil spills are somehow better if they come out of a pipe than a ship? A spill is a spill dummy.

2) This pipeline is being proposed along with a SHIPPING TERMINAL, where the pipeline oil will be pumped onto TANKERS. They want to bring TANKERS into an environmentally sensitive area. Are you saying that an oil spill on the scale of Valdez will somehow be ok as long as the ship isn't owned by Enbridge? Lke PetroChina or Russia's GazProm will somehow be more diligent in prevention and clean-up?

Maybe you should take those crayons out of your ears, I think you're sticking them in too deep.

The part of my post you quoted, Mr. Holmes, said nothing whatsoever about tankers. I am quite aware of the process needed to get oil to Asian markets. What was your point?

Tankers and their envrionmental risk is a discussion BCers need to have within their province.

[Gunnair]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Enbridge = pipeline.

Pipelines don't go overseas. Someone else owns the tanker.

Do you need me to draw it in crayon for you?

Holy fuck Sherlock, look who needs the crayons! WTF is your point anyways?

NOTE:

1) Pipelines can spill too and Enbridge is currently responsible for largest pipeline spill, which occured just in 2010. And they got roasted for their incompetence. What are tyring to suggest in the above, that oil spills are somehow better if they come out of a pipe than a ship? A spill is a spill dummy.

2) This pipeline is being proposed along with a SHIPPING TERMINAL, where the pipeline oil will be pumped onto TANKERS. They want to bring TANKERS into an environmentally sensitive area. Are you saying that an oil spill on the scale of Valdez will somehow be ok as long as the ship isn't owned by Enbridge? Lke PetroChina or Russia's GazProm will somehow be more diligent in prevention and clean-up?

Maybe you should take those crayons out of your ears, I think you're sticking them in too deep.

The part of my post you quoted, Mr. Holmes, said nothing whatsoever about tankers. I am quite aware of the process needed to get oil to Asian markets. What was your point?

Tankers and their envrionmental risk is a discussion BCers need to have within their province.

They have. Generally there is not much support which in turn stops the pipeline.

[andyt]

We're having it. And Gunnair is representative of a lot of BCrs views, IMO. I'm a little more willing to take the risk, but only if top notch risk management is in place. (And I don't trust the Liberals or CPC here). I think the living in a cave argument applies if you're not willing to take any risk, but the risk has to be reasonable and in proportion to reward. As it stands, BC takes the risk, Alberta gets the reward. Not gonna happen.

[DrCaleb]

Gunnair Gunnair:

They have. Generally there is not much support which in turn stops the pipeline.

That's cool. I'm generally not in favour of shipping raw bitumen anywhere. I'd rather it be upgraded here, and shipped as oil or finished products. More jobs = better long term growth.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Well there's not much to hit in Hecate Straight either untk the shoreline shows up. Both are wide but both are notoriously nasty stretches of water. Prince Rupert only eliminates the need to go down the narrow Douglas Channel. One still has to deal with the waters and the fact that a grounding would likely be on Haida Gwaii or Prince of Wales Islsnd in Alaska.

At Juan de Fuca, the US requires industry to fund tugs that are on standby in case something goes wrong with a tanker there. They've been called out something like 11 times in a number of years - ie infrequently. We could require the same at Dixon Entrance. (Although I don't know how well those tugs would do with the weather they get up there.) But it seems like a short distance to have to traverse and then it's free and clear sailing. I'm willing to take reasonable risk up there, as I would be if the pipeline gets built to Vancouver. Gotta move that oil somehow.

[DrCaleb]

The problem we are trying to accomplish though is to expand our markets, and become less reliant on our cousins to the south. The problem is that Alberta is one of only two provinces that are land locked, giving us little choice in which markets we can persue.

They could pipe it to Eastern Canada, but burying a pipeline deep in the Canadian Shield would be wickedly expensive. Leaving it above ground wouldn't be an option. North through the NWT to Alaska? Also not cheap. That just leaves south again, and that was what we were wanting to avoid.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

The part of my post you quoted, Mr. Holmes, said nothing whatsoever about tankers. I am quite aware of the process needed to get oil to Asian markets. What was your point?

Point is, you are advocating for a plan to introduce a Pipeline AND Tankers. There will not be one without the other so no reason to distinguish between the two in the context of environmental risk. A spill that costs billions to clean up and ruins a habitat for 25 years or more is what it is. Pointing out who owns which ship or stretch of pipe does not in anyway affect the financial/environmental costs of a spill disaster and probably not the likelihood of one either.

[Strutz]

andyt andyt:

We're having it. And Gunnair is representative of a lot of BCrs views, IMO. I'm a little more willing to take the risk, but only if top notch risk management is in place. (And I don't trust the Liberals or CPC here). I think the living in a cave argument applies if you're not willing to take any risk, but the risk has to be reasonable and in proportion to reward. As it stands, BC takes the risk, Alberta gets the reward. Not gonna happen.

No amount of "reward" could even come close in proportion to the permanent damage that would be done if an accident was ever to take place. All the money in the world would never make the damage "go away".

Considering the challenges, as Gunnair has pointed out, using either possible shipping routes, it will be extremely high risk and a disaster waiting to happen. I dearly hope I'm wrong on this.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

The part of my post you quoted, Mr. Holmes, said nothing whatsoever about tankers. I am quite aware of the process needed to get oil to Asian markets. What was your point?

Point is, you are advocating for a plan to introduce a Pipeline AND Tankers. There will not be one without the other so no reason to distinguish between the two in the context of environmental risk. A spill that costs billions to clean up and ruins a habitat for 25 years or more is what it is. Pointing out who owns which ship or stretch of pipe does not in anyway affect the financial/environmental costs of a spill disaster and probably not the likelihood of one either.

I haven't advocated for any such thing. All I was asking for was co-operation between government, and the best income possible from Alberta's natural resources.

You do seem to have a habit of taking people's post in whichever light seems most negative to you. I'm all about the facts, and the fact is that Enbridge will never be responsible for cleanup costs resulting from a tanker spill. If people decide to skew the debate to imply otherwise, I can't stop them. I can only point out their error.

[andyt]

Strutz Strutz:

andyt andyt:

We're having it. And Gunnair is representative of a lot of BCrs views, IMO. I'm a little more willing to take the risk, but only if top notch risk management is in place. (And I don't trust the Liberals or CPC here). I think the living in a cave argument applies if you're not willing to take any risk, but the risk has to be reasonable and in proportion to reward. As it stands, BC takes the risk, Alberta gets the reward. Not gonna happen.

No amount of "reward" could even come close in proportion to the permanent damage that would be done if an accident was ever to take place. All the money in the world would never make the damage "go away".

Considering the challenges, as Gunnair has pointed out, using either possible shipping routes, it will be extremely high risk and a disaster waiting to happen. I dearly hope I'm wrong on this.

We can't say BC's coast is too pristine for oil while we suck up the stuff as much as everybody else. Fair bit of tanker traffic thru Juan de Fuca straight, and so far we're disaster free. I'll leave it to the experts, but so far my opinion is that shipping from Prince Rupert is a manageable and acceptable risk. And we do want to diversify who buys our oil and get the most money we can for it.

[Prof_Chomsky]

If it's money we're worried about she's barking up the wrong tree.
Want more revenue for environment "risks"? Force the feds to re-negotiate the natural resource contracts so instead of receiving 5-15% of profits we, the owners of the natural resource, get a more European percentage in the neighbourhood of 80-95%.

[andyt]

I thought those were provincial taxes. But sure, never understood why Alberta was so eager to give their non-renewable resource away.